The role of healthcare professionals in encouraging parents to see and hold their stillborn baby: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

Background: Globally, during 2013 there were three million recorded stillbirths. Where clinical guidelines exist some recommend that professionals do not encourage parental contact. The guidance is based on quantitative evidence that seeing and holding the baby is not beneficial for everyone, but has been challenged by bereaved parents' organisations. We aim to inform future guideline development through a synthesis of qualitative studies reporting data relevant to the research question; how does the approach of healthcare professionals to seeing and holding the baby following stillbirth impact parents views and experiences? Methods/Findings: Using a predetermined search strategy of PubMed and PsychINFO we identified robust qualitative studies reporting bereaved parental views and/or experiences relating to seeing and holding their stillborn baby (final search 24 February, 2014). Eligible studies were English language, reporting parental views, with gestational loss >20weeks. Quality was independently assessed by three authors using a validated tool. We used meta-ethnographic techniques to identify key themes and a line of argument synthesis. We included 12 papers, representing the views of 333 parents (156 mothers, 150 fathers, and 27 couples) from six countries. The final themes were: "[Still]birth: Nature of care is paramount", "Real babies: Perfect beauties, monsters and spectres", and "Opportunity of a lifetime lost." Our line-of-argument synthesis highlights the contrast between all parents need to know their baby, with the time around birth being the only time memories can be made, and the variable ability that parents have to articulate their preferences at that time. Thus, we hypothesised that how health professionals approach contact between parents and their stillborn baby demands a degree of active management. An important limitation of this paper is all included studies originated from high income, westernised countries raising questions about the findings transferability to other cultural contexts. We do not offer new evidence to answer the question "Should parents see and hold their stillborn baby?", instead our findings advance understanding of how professionals can support parents to make appropriate decisions in a novel, highly charged and dynamic situation. Conclusions: Guidelines could be more specific in their recommendations regarding parental contact. The role of healthcare professionals in encouraging parents to see and hold their stillborn baby is paramount. Parental choice not to see their baby, apprehension, or uncertainty should be continuously revisited in the hours after birth as the opportunity for contact is fleeting and final

The development and application of a new tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care

Abstract Background: Current measures of antenatal care use are limited to initiation of care and number of visits. This study aimed to describe the development and application of a tool to assess the adequacy of the content and timing of antenatal care. Methods: The Content and Timing of care in Pregnancy (CTP) tool was developed based on clinical relevance for ongoing antenatal care and recommendations in national and international guidelines. The tool reflects minimal care recommended in every pregnancy, regardless of parity or risk status. CTP measures timing of initiation of care, content of care (number of blood pressure readings, blood tests and ultrasound scans) and whether the interventions were received at an appropriate time. Antenatal care trajectories for 333 pregnant women were then described using a standard tool (the APNCU index), that measures the quantity of care only, and the new CTP tool. Both tools categorise care into 4 categories, from ‘Inadequate’ (both tools) to ‘Adequate plus’ (APNCU) or ‘Appropriate’ (CTP). Participants recorded the timing and content of their antenatal care prospectively using diaries. Analysis included an examination of similarities and differences in categorisation of care episodes between the tools. Results: According to the CTP tool, the care trajectory of 10,2% of the women was classified as inadequate, 8,4% as intermediate, 36% as sufficient and 45,3% as appropriate. The assessment of quality of care differed significantly between the two tools. Seventeen care trajectories classified as ‘Adequate’ or ‘Adequate plus’ by the APNCU were deemed ‘Inadequate’ by the CTP. This suggests that, despite a high number of visits, these women did not receive the minimal recommended content and timing of care. Conclusions: The CTP tool provides a more detailed assessment of the adequacy of antenatal care than the current standard index. However, guidelines for the content of antenatal care vary, and the tool does not at the moment grade over-use of interventions as ‘Inappropriate’. Further work needs to be done to refine the content items prior to larger scale testing of the impact of the new measure

The psychometric properties of the subscales of the GHQ-28 in a multi-ethnic maternal sample: results from the Born in Bradford cohort

Background: Poor maternal mental health can impact on children’s development and wellbeing; however, there is concern about the comparability of screening instruments administered to women of diverse ethnic origin. Methods: We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the subscale structure of the GHQ-28 in an ethnically diverse community cohort of pregnant women in the UK (N = 5,089). We defined five groups according to ethnicity and language of administration, and also conducted a CFA between four groups of 1,095 women who completed the GHQ-28 both during and after pregnancy. Results: After item reduction, 17 of the 28 items were considered to relate to the same four underlying concepts in each group; however, there was variation in the response to individual items by women of different ethnic origin and this rendered between group comparisons problematic. The EFA revealed that these measurement difficulties might be related to variation in the underlying concepts being measured by the factors. Conclusions: We found little evidence to recommend the use of the GHQ-28 subscales in routine clinical or epidemiological assessment of maternal women in populations of diverse ethnicity

Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual "richness" for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER)

Background Systematic review methodologies can be harnessed to help researchers to understand and explain how complex interventions may work. Typically, when reviewing complex interventions, a review team will seek to understand the theories that underpin an intervention and the specific context for that intervention. A single published report from a research project does not typically contain this required level of detail. A review team may find it more useful to examine a “study cluster”; a group of related papers that explore and explain various features of a single project and thus supply necessary detail relating to theory and/or context. We sought to conduct a preliminary investigation, from a single case study review, of techniques required to identify a cluster of related research reports, to document the yield from such methods, and to outline a systematic methodology for cluster searching. Methods In a systematic review of community engagement we identified a relevant project – the Gay Men’s Task Force. From a single “key pearl citation” we conducted a series of related searches to find contextually or theoretically proximate documents. We followed up Citations, traced Lead authors, identified Unpublished materials, searched Google Scholar, tracked Theories, undertook ancestry searching for Early examples and followed up Related projects (embodied in the CLUSTER mnemonic). Results Our structured, formalised procedure for cluster searching identified useful reports that are not typically identified from topic-based searches on bibliographic databases. Items previously rejected by an initial sift were subsequently found to inform our understanding of underpinning theory (for example Diffusion of Innovations Theory), context or both. Relevant material included book chapters, a Web-based process evaluation, and peer reviewed reports of projects sharing a common ancestry. We used these reports to understand the context for the intervention and to explore explanations for its relative lack of success. Additional data helped us to challenge simplistic assumptions on the homogeneity of the target population. Conclusions A single case study suggests the potential utility of cluster searching, particularly for reviews that depend on an understanding of context, e.g. realist synthesis. The methodology is transparent, explicit and reproducible. There is no reason to believe that cluster searching is not generalizable to other review topics. Further research should examine the contribution of the methodology beyond improved yield, to the final synthesis and interpretation, possibly by utilizing qualitative sensitivity analysis

Experience of parents who have suffered a perinatal death in two Spanish hospitals: a qualitative study

Background: Perinatal grief is a process that affects families in biological, psychological, social and spiritual terms. It is estimated that every year there are 2.7 million perinatal deaths worldwide and 4.43 deaths for every 1000 births in Spain. The aim of this study is to describe and understand the experiences and perceptions of parents who have suffered a perinatal death. Methods: A qualitative study based on Gadamer’s hermeneutic phenomenology. The study was conducted in two hospitals in the South of Spain. Thirteen mothers and eight fathers who had suffered a perinatal death in the 5 years prior to the study participated in this study. In-depth interviews were carried out for data collection. Inductive analysis was used to find themes based on the data. Results: Eight sub-themes emerged, and they were grouped into three main themes: ‘Perceiving the threat and anticipating the baby’s death: “Something is going wrong in my pregnancy”’; ‘Emotional outpouring: the shock of losing a baby and the pain of giving birth to a stillborn baby’; “We have had a baby”: The need to give an identity to the baby and legitimise grief’. Conclusion: The grief suffered after a perinatal death begins with the anticipation of the death, which relates to the mother’s medical history, symptoms and premonitions. The confirmation of the death leads to emotional shock, characterised by pain and suffering. The chance to take part in mourning rituals and give the baby the identity of a deceased baby may help in the grieving and bereavement process. Having empathy for the parents and notifying them of the death straightaway can help ease the pain. Midwives can help in the grieving process by facilitating the farewell rituals, accompanying the family, helping in honouring the memory of the baby, and supporting parents in giving the deceased infant an identity that makes them a family member

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients ? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field ? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results ? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.SIENNA project - Stakeholder-informed ethics for new technologies with high socio-economic and human rights impac